233203 Bullies, 3388 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 1 to 2 of 2
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Tonuzaba is offline
    Tonuzaba's Avatar

    C.E. B.S.net Ambassador

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    5,610

    Posted On:
    6/10/2014 2:55am

    supporting member
     Style: (Beautiful) Spring Roll

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!

    Y U have a face like this? (Seriously: our faces evolved to take punches...)

    Facial and jaw bones of humans evolved in correlation with our ability to clench our fists and punch each other in the face, hard...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	_75363184_broken_jaw.jpg 
Views:	49 
Size:	9.3 KB 
ID:	16079

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27720617


    [h=Male faces 'buttressed against punches' by evolution]1[/h]By Jonathan WebbScience reporter, BBC NewsA new theory suggests that our male ancestors evolved beefy facial features as a defence against fist fights.
    The bones most commonly broken in human punch-ups also gained the most strength in early "hominin" evolution.
    They are also the bones that show most divergence between males and females.
    The paper, in the journal Biological Reviews, argues that the reinforcements evolved amid fighting over females and resources, suggesting that violence drove key evolutionary changes.
    Jump media player
    Media player help

    Out of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.



    Fossil records show that the australopiths, immediate predecessors of the human genus Homo, had strikingly robust facial structures.
    For many years, this extra strength was seen as an adaptation to a tough diet including nuts, seeds and grasses. But more recent findings, examining the wear pattern and carbon isotopes in australopith teeth, have cast some doubt on this "feeding hypothesis".
    "In fact, [the australopith] boisei, the 'nutcracker man', was probably eating fruit," said Prof David Carrier, the new theory's lead author and an evolutionary biologist at the University of Utah.
    Masculine armourInstead of diet, Prof Carrier and his co-author, physician Dr Michael Morgan, propose that violent competition demanded the development of these facial fortifications: what they call the "protective buttressing hypothesis".
    In support of their proposal, Carrier and Morgan offer data from modern humans fighting. Several studies from hospital emergency wards, including one from the Bristol Royal Infirmary, show that faces are particularly vulnerable to violent injuries.
    "Jaws are one of the most frequent bones to break - and it's not the end of the world now, because we have surgeons, we have modern medicine," Prof Carrier explained. "But four million years ago, if you broke your jaw, it was probably a fatal injury. You wouldn't be able to chew food... You'd just starve to death."
    The jaw, cheek, eye and nose structures that most commonly come to grief in modern fist fights were also the most protected by evolutionary changes seen in the australopiths.
    Furthermore, these are the bones that show the most differences between men and women, as well as between our male and female forebears. That is how you would expect defensive armour to evolve, Prof Carrier points out.
    "In humans and in great apes in general... it's males that are most likely to get into fights, and it's also males that are most likely to get injured," he told BBC News.
    Long-running debateInterestingly, the evolutionary descendents of the australopiths - including humans - have displayed less and less facial buttressing.
    This is consistent, according to Prof Carrier, with a decreasing need for protection: "Our arms and upper body are not nearly as strong as they were in the australopiths," he explained. "There's a temporal correlation."
    The facial buttressing idea builds on a previous observation by Prof Carrier and Dr Morgan that the early hominins were the first primates to evolve a hand shape compatible with making a fist - and thus, throwing a punch.
    That earlier paper attracted criticism from some other researchers, and Prof Carrier expects this new contribution may also prove controversial. He says that debate about the role of violence in human evolution is not new.
    "[Our paper] does address this debate of whether our past was violent or peaceful," he told the BBC. "That's an argument that's been going on for a very long time."
    "The historical record goes back a short time, the archaeological record goes back a few tens of thousand years more... But the anatomy holds clues to what selection was important, what behaviours were important, and so it gives us information about the very distant past."

    CLICK & WATCH
    :
    I got BULLSHIDO ON TV!!!

    "Bruce Lee sucks because I slammed my nuts with nunchucks trying to do that stupid **** back in the day. I still managed to have two kids. I forgive you Bruce.
    " - by Vorpal
  2. JFawkes is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    7

    Posted On:
    8/26/2014 4:28pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: San Soo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!

    Awesome

    Well damn. And here I thought we evolved to hunt other animals, but I guess we've long ago reached the point of optimizing to kill each other. Sad, but extremely interesting. Great post.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.